a man slipped and fell over a cliff edge. he found himself hanging from a small tree unable to climb up. He spoke to the heavens "is anybody up there?" . A voice replied "I am your God, have faith in me and let go of the branch". The man replied "umm, is there anybody else up there?"
Facts alone cannot ground our knowledge of the world. Consider
P1: there is a fact F: "my beliefs correspond to reality."
P2: F is unverifiable. I cannot *know* that F.
P3: F grounds my knowledge of the world.
C: The grounding of my knowledge of the world is unknowable.
P2 is key: There is no method of verifying whether our beliefs are true. Even if they are, the fact that they are is not enough to justify my knowledge in them.
@derfos666 A fact is that which *is* known. Your premises don't make sense.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand
This guy is dealing with an extreme caricature of faith. There is no conflict between religion & science in a general/abstract sense. There can be particular religions which specifically go against science, but unless there is an explicitly, or at least strongly implicit, religious teaching then there really is no conflict. In short, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
@hrobertb The point is that religion tells you the believe something on faith - that is, without any evidence. Science, does not ask you to have faith, but rather provides solid reasoning for why you should accept something to be true. This is the conflict. Moreover, one cannot be consistent in life if one will have faith or "believe" in religious doctrine but maintain scientific rational in other aspects of life.
@hrobertb My definition of faith is correct - that you are asked to believe something without evidence. And my point on consistency is that it is inconsistent for one to be scientific in all aspects of life and faith based when it comes to religion. If you do this, you are giving religion special treatment, allowing it to operate without the same rigour you apply to the rest of your life.
@mason72518 Unfortunately you are only dealing with a strawman :( I came to faith because of the strong evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (see William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona). EVEN IF faith was without evidence or rationality, which I do not for a minute agree with, my belief is still based on evidence.
@mason72518 Ironically, you are the one that cannot be consistent. You are asking me to believe in things that can only be scientifically verified, but that statement does not even stand up to it's own assertion, i.e., it's self refuting! So, no, I am perfectly rational and you are dealing with a caricature of what faith is.
Objectivism is just another term for materialism and naturalism and is based on the tautological belief that "existence exists", which could be translated as only "material existence exists".
@fede2 sure enough, but that's not what that statement intends. it simply states that *there is existence* and it's not something inherent exclusively to materialism/naturalism. it 's a reiteration of aristotle's "A is A".
@Sivels you are delusional. people like you are what Eric Voegelin called Gnostics. people who think they can know the truth of everything if they only had the right method and means....keep dreaming, you provide not only bad philosophy but BAD SCIENCE.
@cirosuperiore Faith is by definition a belief that is supported without any empirical evidence.
Sure I don't know if there's a Batman on mars, or whether there are flying unicorns flying around in space, but you're not called upon to prove a negative.
Notice how the pseudo-intellectual knucklehead in this video says that "reason is based on facts" as if what he is asserting is either reasonable or factual. In his zeal to defend his religion of atheism, he mocks reason and science by claiming that science and theism do not, and can not agree together.
What about information?
1. Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
2. Knowledge & Intelligence only arises from a MIND.
It's neither random nor chaos. The alternatives you give are invalid because of your premise that there is a "source" at all.
The Objectivist position is that there is no "source" or rather, no "first cause".
Instead, their position is: existence exists. The universe has always been here, and everything that *is* (except those things acted upon by volitional entities, i.e., man) could not have been otherwise.
Also to add if one was to take reality seriously they would be living in an ultra bizarre world of strange and unusual coincidences that happen all the time. Ever hear of the phrase, "sometimes truth is stranger then fiction", or "you cant make this stuff up"? The very nature of reality is extremely irrational and extra ordinary on a scientific scale.
There's a problem with this argument and that is the absence of a definition of 'god'. If god is some powerful being then I'm most definitely an atheist. However, if god is the essence of logic and reason, then I'm most definitely a theist.
On the contrary, it clarifies why you should care about others- they are valuable to you personally, emotionally, physically, through their own values- through the improvement of our world. In a way, it's much more profound an explanation than blindly "loving" others- which means, to have no reason to love others. How hollow is that.
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism." Martin Luther King Jr.
"She takes her mind seriously...the evidence of her senses." I love that. I feel even science has adopted negative connotations-merely the supposed destruction of religion. It is its opposite. Let's not use the word then. To destroy faith use the evidence of your senses. Or do we all reject our own perceptions to that unknowable leap of faith?
Objectivism is very similar to philosophical realism,a nd in fact I developed my belief in objectivism without even hearing her version of it, in fact the only reason why I developed concepts of objectivism was because of God's existance himself, and the rejection of Atheism.
What made me laugh is that the person said Reigion and Reason are contradictory, when the guy probably never heard of abduction, and the fact that a guy named Thomas Aquinas existed (lol).
This is ridiculous.What i cant believe is that this whole religion debate is still going on. i mean its been like 150 years or something since Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published and we are still having this debate? Darwin must be rolling in his grave right now man.
Darwin didn't address anything about atheism specifically, he came up with a scientific theory. There are plenty of scientific theories, such as geological ones which claim the continents moved over millions of years, which also contradict the Bible and existed before Darwin. In order for people to reject faith they need a philosophical basis--a proper defense of reason.
@subdue420 Evolution is a scientific discovery, and science refutes religion. Reason is the working antithesis to the vegetable state of cognition one may refer to as "faith," the supposed means to revelation, or knowledge gifted (not created by a willful means of conceptual focus).
@subdue420 the problem with only refuting 'some of it's claims' is that religion states that everything in it's doctrine (whatever religion it is) is all true and, therefore, equally true. To someone who believes this, proving one thing false is like proving everything false.
@Goi825 ? What religion says that? In order to believe that statement means you have to deny the reason for the various sects within every major religion. The reasons behind the schisms (like the ones in objectivism) is because a group of people disagree with some of the pervading views of another group. Heck look at the reasons behind the protestant reformation, or the creed differences betweem the Wahhabis and the Sufis in Islam. Your statement is false.
Charles Darwin developed his natural selection theory in 1838, and he de-converted to Agnostic Deism in 1851, note that he never even rejected God thea Creator, just religion. Furthermore, it took him 13 years to do so, and not because of science, rather his daughter's death, and if he were today, you'd be surprised by your nescience about him:
"It is absurd to doubt that an ardent Theist can be an evolutionist as well" ~Charles Darwin
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's rubbish. Faith and reason don't contradict. They live in different worlds. You can have reason for anything you like, but it will get you nowhere after you're deceased. It will get you nowhere in any realm that you have no control over, and anyone well versed in reason knows that there are many fields that they have absolutely no control over.
noes ayn rand why did she have to be an atheist... she doesn't understand the world at all and yet does in some respect.... maybe i can say she doesn't understand society
If Einstein had imbued the philosophy of Ayn Rand at say 16, do you think it would be totally unlikely that he'd have thought up the special theory of relativity?
Likewise Werner Heisenburg's uncertainty principle?
I think of Newton and Hume being forced to read Aristotle as a comparable scenario.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Religion and reason DO NOT conflict. Reason and logic can lead us to the conclusion that God is! True Christianity do not tell people to shut off reason and the mind - this man knows absolutely nothing about the whole subject of apologetics.
With due respect, kentuckypreacher, reason and logic can very clearly see that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods, let alone yours, and if your definition of "true Christianity" doesn't tell people to shut off reason and the mind, then you must not be using the Bible as a source for your faith.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the contrary, friend: it is the Bible which provides a reasonable and logical evidential foundation for the Christian faith. I find many critics who are actually quite unfamiliar with its contents, which explains their denunciation.
Why certainly, kentuckypreacher, we can discuss this further. You say you have found evidence in the Bible that proves the existence of God. Fantastic! As a child I was not only heavily involved with my church, but was an officer on the youth ministry board. But when I began to question my faith, I found a lack of answers in the Bible. So let's talk about the Biblical evidence for God. Go ahead, please, and tell me what is in the Bible that proves the existence of God.
hahahaha regardless. you are still looking at a book, not your personal environment (reality), and resting your case on faith. you choose you religion based on your feelings, subjectivity
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To someone with the grace of God, there is evidence in all existence. In fact, Christianity is THE ONLY system that can be successfully defended by reason and logic.
Whew! That's a good one, dude. I'm going to tell that joke to all my friends. I can even switch it up. Check this out:
To someone with the grace of Allah, there is evidence in all existence. In fact, Islam is THE ONLY system that yadda yadda yadda. Or You can use "The Goddess" and "Wicca," or "Satan" and "Satanism." Or any god and their religion. And it won't matter because it's a false assertion either way.
Nope. Islam is logically inconsistent and cannot reconcile its commandments with its moral code. It requires theft but forbids stealing. Christianity is consistent. It also holds that God is not omnipotent.
Christianity is consistent? On the contrary, most Christians merely play lip service to the word of God and do as they will. This is why Christians own the highest population in US prisons. The Bible contradicts itself in numerous places. And the practices of Christianity have changed considerably since the times talked about in the Bible. Where is the consistency?
And FYI, Muslims feel the same way about Christianity as you do about Islam. They make the same basic claim you did here.
That made no sense, we're not talking about the inconsistencies between the followers and the system, but in the system in itself, and you made a fallacy when assuming that people who contradict Christian philosophy are Christian. Furthermore, a causation/corellation fallacy with the prison statistic. name the contradictions? I'll name some contradictions in your methodological naturalism after. So how about you provide evidence for your claims.
Except, thanks to a little thing called dogma, the followers ARE the system. And er, wait, no, I didn't say people who contradict, I said Christians who contradict, so no fallacy. And, um, no, I never said christianity was the cause, so no fallacy. The prison statistics are freely available and provided by the US Gov. There are also numerous videos about Christians being the highest population per capita in US prisons Right here on the YouTube.
Dogma makes followers the system? That makes no sense, and isntead of explaining, you went on as if it had any meaning or truth to it. So if you're saying that Christianity is not the cause, how does hti spertain to anything at all? You brought up a moot point that has no germane point to our discussion, wait, did you read up on 2nd grade logic?
You're an Atheist, sunshine (wtf lol?), follows methodological or metaphysical natualism by default... wow, can't believe this.
A dogma is a cherished belief that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original religious doctrine, or even opposes it. Basically a religious form of majority rule. Like how many Christians use Leviticus to put down gays but ignore the rest of the law.
And all atheist means is no belief in a god. It doesn't have a default philosophy.
And if you can't believe it, you're free to find something else to do, sunshine.
(Pert 2) And you want to name contradictions in what? Sunshine, I'm an atheist, so I don't know what you're hoping to do by poking holes in "methodological naturalism," but be my guest.
@hgryphon the bible never says that reason and the mind should be shut off. it just says to keep in mind that everything we know through reason and the mind are because of god
@DarkJoker7 Regarding this comment, I wasn't asserting the Bible specifically says the mind should be shut off. I left the comment almost a year ago and would need to re-watch the video and compare it to the comment by kentuckypreacher that I left this as a response to.
However, if you are going to begin with the conclusion that everything we know through reason and the mind are because of god, then you clearly have shut off the mind. There is no reason to begin with that assumption.
@hgryphon if you are to begin with the assumption that something if it exists that with all the powers its suppose to have can be quantified or validated in any way by this planes science then you have clearly shut off the mind...a creature or being of extraplanar or supernatural origin would never be able to be proven through logic that tries to say everything must follow the same order of existence and if humans can't experiment on it, it mustn't exist. this is a flawed and haughty assumption
@DarkJoker7 Except to postulate such a being, you have to be able to quantify it.
Supernatural? What's that mean? Everything labeled "supernatural" is either fraud, hallucination, or misidentification of rational things.
Extraplanar? Can you name anything else that is extraplanar to compare your god concept to?
Answering questions with concepts like this is basically saying, "I don't know, but I do know." It's a weak, ineffective patch, and it certainly doesn't answer anything.
@hgryphon no you don't...because its in the very nature of anything infinite to be unquantifiable
supernatural is anything beyond normal, your idea on the supernatural is based solely off the things have been proven wrong, when anything truly supernatural would defy explanation regardless of any advancements in science
extraplanar, look into M theory, the very nature of our universe creates a paradox where everything is true and false at the same time meaning so are religions no ones wrong
@DarkJoker7 Okay, look... M theory? That concept that there are 11 dimensions? Let's say it's correct for a moment and there is such a thing as an 11 dimensional object. This 11 dimensional object would still manifest all the way down to the first dimension, just as all three dimensional objects manifest in two and one dimensions. It also doesn't say "everything is right and wrong." If you're going to point to science, understand the science first?
@hgryphon m theory also states that for these things to exist there must be infinite numbers of dimensions not just 11...the 11th dimension is a form of string theory which m theory does encompass but there are more then just 11...these dimensions are not just spacial...everything exists on a wavelength which can pass through each other therefore a being such as god in a different dimension would not be manifest in a way we could detect
@DarkJoker7 Stop. I'm going to call your bluff: you're pulling this out of your butt. M-theory refers to just the 11th, so if you're talking about concepts that include more than 11, then you're not talking about M-theory. Also, dimensions ARE just spatial. For instance, height, length, width. And everything that exists as X-dimensional also manifests as (X-1)-dimensional as a cross section, so I don't know where you're getting your info. I'm going to need your reference mats, please.
@hgryphon m theory is more then just 11...the 11th dimension theory was outmoded by m theory in that there are an infinite number of dimensions also
no dimensions are more then just spacial...time is one of the 11 dimensions your talking about it is not a point in space...also...when something is on a different wavelength then you such as most of the dimensions...you pass through it without knowing you have...therefore you couldn't see or touch it
@DarkJoker7 I'm sorry, but again you are wrong on what m-theory states. In fact, the opening line in Wikipedia is: In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified.
Time is not a dimension. Time is a measure of rotations of space bodies around one another. Time is used as a label in some Newtonian models, but this is different than time literally being another dimension.
@DarkJoker7 A different wavelength of WHAT? What are you proposing exists at a different wavelength? I'm sorry, but the cheese has slipped off your cracker.
And you want ME to look up the topic of m-theory? I already did. Maybe YOU should look up something on m-theory, and you could then stop asserting that the concept says things that it clearly does not.
Further, let's suppose for a moment that m-theory says there are more than 11 dimensions and they were more than spacial. So what?
@hgryphon each dimension has its own wavelength...and if your not on that wavelength you can pass through it as if it wasn't there at all...
i was telling you to cause you told me to show you something that says m theory states there are an infinite number of dimensions. if you actually read up on the thing you would know this.
they are more then spacial, meaning that just because they exist doesn't mean you would be aware you were moving through them...like light waves
@DarkJoker7 "each dimension has its own wavelength" Citation needed. Where did you hear this bullshit? Because that's what it is. If someone told you this and you believed them, you got sold a bill of goods.
Oh, I have read up on m-theory. That's how I know it doesn't say what you say it says.
"just because they exist doesn't mean you would be aware you were moving through them" Again, citation needed. You can't move through "length." You can't move through "height." You can't move through them!
@hgryphon also as for proof watch history channels video on it...or look it up...anything remotely factual on the topic of m theory will prove my point
@DarkJoker7 I'm also going to have to disagree with you on this statement. Anything that defies the laws of physics would be supernatural. For instance, if I handed you a box, and that box contained the Amazon River, or any number of impossible things, that would be supernatural, and it doesn't have to be "something impossible in a box," that was just one example.
Also, you might want to turn off your auto-Twitter feed. Without evidence, you're going to get your rear handed to you.
@DarkJoker7 Are you not paying attention? If you handed me a box with the Amazon River in it, I could prove it existed because I'd be holding it!
The supernatural is wishful thinking, ignorance, or a combination of the two. You can NOT say "the supernatural exists" and then say "you can't prove it exists." Because if you can't prove it exists, you can't claim that it does.
So drop the subject of supernatural until you can bring me something that actually is supernatural. Concepts don't real.
@hgryphon the point is...with infinite dimensions...there is no such thing as impossiblities...of course its ok to not want to believe this after all...the realm of the infinite can be a big scary place you have to be ready for it
@DarkJoker7 I think you're using one word in place of another. I think the word you are looking for is "universes." As in a multiverse. Is that what you mean? Because an alternate universe is not the same concept as other dimensions. If you do mean alternate universes or a multiverse, that's not what m-theory is about. It's a completely separate issue. It's not a matter of comparing apples and oranges, it's a matter of comparing apples and VW buses. But if you don't mean that, then you're wrong.
@DarkJoker7 Okay, that answers that question. You don't mean dimension, you mean universe.
Now I'm going to tell you why this video is wrong. It makes wild assertions about the nature of places that don't exist in this universe, that can't be detected, that can't be measured. In short, they're making shit up as they go along.
Also, so what? You can postulate anything you want about an alternate universe. It doesn't make it true. I'm postulating a spatula universe. You think that's real too?
@hgryphon quite frankly yes...anythings possible when you create an infinite chance for it to happen and with a variable for laws of nature...i could say a giant whale just stole a mans wallet...and its happened somewhere not because i said so but because theres no chance when you bring in the infinite and the unencumbered for any illusion of fiction...and the point of me pointing out that not all dimensions are spatial is because like with time you can't literally feel time pass
@DarkJoker7 What the hell are you smoking, dude? Just because something can happen, even with infinite chances, it doesn't mean it will. Just because there are infinite alternate universes doesn't mean that every pattern is expressed among them. What if every other one of those alternate universes is nothing but particles that never join into atoms?
And on top of that, how does postulating anything about places we can never experience matter in relation to the world we live in?
@hgryphon nothing at all, the nature of the infinite eclipses your every statement as you seem to still be thinking within our boxed in universe...considering not all of them follow the rules of our science in favor of their own...anything is practical and is a fact...if you can't wrap your mind around something do not slap it down as you would a spider that you were scared of...i know when your told the infinite is a theory and not a reality as a kid you assume its true latter but science has
@hgryphon always pointed out the infinite...also the usefulness of it...comes back around to the original argument...an infinite being like god with infinite power would be free to roam as he willed through all of the alternate realities as he willed that was the reason we ended up talking about AR's in the first place
@DarkJoker7 No, that was the reason YOU started talking about alternate universes. I'm still not impressed. Especially since you still aren't one step closer to showing any evidence for gods. You've gone off on this terrific tangent which only shows evidence that you're not understanding science, or misunderstanding it enough to feel you've found a loophole that lets you claim a god exists. I can mathematically prove you didn't do this.
@hgryphon oh really, let me warn in making that statement you've proven once again you have no clue what YOUR talking about...as your ignoring the fact that no matter what you say you can't tell the truth or lie...in the end making any claim to the contrary the exact sort of evidence needed to prove me correct...infinite universes = no room for doubt in anything
@DarkJoker7 Oh, well if I can't tell the truth OR lie, then there's no point to anything you're saying, right? (By the way, it's you're, the contraction of you and are, not your. Just FYI. If you care.)
Look, you can't just assert "infinite universes = no room for doubt." You have no evidence to support this statement.
@hgryphon this all started because i was talking about the the possiblities m theory creates never once did i say that it was the end all be all...again my views on existence are purely philosophical not scientific though i do use theoretical physic's many theorys to back it up...
@DarkJoker7 Let's say you're right and there are infinite yous on infinite worlds in the multiverse. Let's say you all flip a coin at the same time, with the actual meta-goal of this coin flip being just one of you gets heads. Statistically, there is a chance that none of the infinite yous will get heads. This is mathematically correct, and it shatters your notion of infinite potential means every concept exists. You can't argue against this fact, though I predict you will now try.
@hgryphon actually i can...again you've ignored part of the fundamentals of the philosophy your precious math can only work in so much as our reality wherein our science and math holds true outside of it...it no longer functions...you can't disprove or prove anything with it beyond our reality
@DarkJoker7 FAIL! You really think that if you are in another universe and you have one apple and someone else gives you one apple, you end up with anything other than two apples? No, the fundamentals of mathematics remain the same.
Once again, you can't assert something like this without evidence.
And "philosophy?" What does philosophy have to do with anything about anything we're discussing?
@hgryphon our math only works in this particular instance of life and existence known as the universe, for instance our form of algebra 2x=2 * x however in another universe with a different set of fundamental mathmatics 2x might equal 7q.
this is an explanation on how it is possible to get one apple + one apple = fish.
once again, you can't assert something doesn't exist without evidence. now you may believe that this doesn't exist and that is the great thing about belief that it is unre-
@hgryphon -estricted you can't simply shove your nose in the air and wave your fist around saying "no no no, thats not the way it is because it's impossible because i can't understand why my science won't work here"...because that is big headed and arrogant and is to say that humanities logic and reason is infalliable. which proven time and time is false.
@hgryphon look back at cave paintings they are instinctual they looked at the world around them and assumed a higher power existed without it being forced upon them
@DarkJoker7 So you're going to support one unfounded claim with two unfounded claims. In this case the claim that cave paintings were instinctual and the claim that they assumed a higher power existed without it being forced upon them. So where is your evidence supporting these two claims?
@hgryphon no, actually its supported by the archaelogical society that cavemen are the originators of spirituality and religion...they passed on their beliefs through cave paintings
@DarkJoker7 That's not what you said though. So are you putting words in these archaeologists' mouths? You made the claim that it was instinctual, and you made the claim that it wasn't forced on anyone.
@hgryphon it is exactly what i was saying, their religion and spirituality was brought on through their own outlooks and beliefs, i'm not putting any words in their mouths...any archaeologist will tell you religion and spirituality was important to them, they had gods just like we do...religion was created with no precedent and seemingly out of no where...abstract concepts like that seem a bit beyond the imagination of paleolithic man
@DarkJoker7 You have no basis for what you are saying. You are simply going with what you feel and drawing a conclusion with no familiarity or evidence. I'll give you one last try to present evidence for your claims without having to make up another claim to cover your ass. You also have the option to simply state you don't actually know what you're talking about.
@hgryphon ok, one your getting butt hurt about the fact we've always had some form of religion or theistic belief....two. i've told you archaeologists know that the cavemen had gods if you don't want to believe this then thats your problem but if you do so you can't claim that cavemen existed at all which is ignorance =) kthxbye
@DarkJoker7 Brilliant. So you're going to ignore my actual objection and make one up. That's called a straw man.
Further, you're going to apply an emotion to my objection. That's classy. It's also not true. If anything, you're amusing me with your inane stupidity and your inability to understand science.
But if you want to dismiss me, by all means, dismiss me. You still lack evidence to support your claims, and the default position still wins.
@hgryphon also, scientists mostly agree the universe is infinite in length and depth...so why then is it so hard for you to believe that existence is also infinite in and of itself
@DarkJoker7 Listen to yourself. That's a bullshit way to look at anything. Just because item X has a given quality, that doesn't mean item Y has that quality.
Example: Trees are made of wood, so why is it hard to believe that the whole planet is made of wood? And before you deny it, that's the exact same kind of logic you're trying to offer me. It's not compelling, it's not rational, it's not even reasonable.
@hgryphon it is when you realize what applies to one thing doesn't apply to the other in this instance you have specified a concrete quality unrelated to the abstract...where as infinite is an abstract quality that is applicable to the abstract untouchable concepts such as space and time something you can touch...can never be infinite because of the very nature of anything concrete
Science is just a theory. For example, science cannot explane why the comets killed only the dinosars and left all the cats and dogs intact. Could it be that dinosars actually never existed? yes, that is one theory that needs to be examined. Dinosars are never mentions in the Bible, therefore they did not exist.
It does not matter what definition the bible uses for faith...when you read it you quickly see that you have to suspend your objective understanding about reality to accept it as true...the trinity, or talking donkey, or the fact Jesus said thoses who believed him would be able to consume poison and it would not hurt them. You have to take things like that on faith to accept them
They have to define what they mean by "faith" more clearly. If it means the acceptance of an idea without demonstration, then they've buried themselves. Historical facts are indemonstrable, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. Also, Scholastic philosophers looked at Christian faith and applied reason to uncover further truths ... they did not shut off their brains when looking at their Christian faith. Somehow, Atheists have always ignored those facts.
"faith" to me means believing in something you would not otherwise have believed on the basis of facts and rationality. So, how is possible for Christians to not "shut of their brains" if they believe based on faith.
I think his definition of faith is wrong. He claims that it is a call to shut off your mind, and surprisingly, many Christians accept this idea (which only shows the moral problems with the modern church). Faith without rationality is hollow. St. Paul constantly appealed based on evidence, and used reason to communicate. The Bible itself is a story of cause and effect. The idea that you just believe something and do not think is a creation of an oppressive modern church. Read Francis Schaeffer.
Faith is a sincere belief in something not manifest. Let us observe a "Hank Rearden" who KNOWS it is possible to make this metal, and all the metallurgists in the world tell him it is not possible based on science. Yet he knows it is. He knows it based partly on a rational process of understanding himself, and his own capabilities, and of course his knowledge of physical reality; but when he declares, as he fails for the thousandth time, but perseveres, that is IS possible, he has faith in his..
... vision, in his ability, in his invention; though the formula as yet does not exist; there is no physical proof that it can exist, and yet he has faith in this invention not yet manifest. The belief in the not yet manifest; which is absolutely necessary for an artist to make a new work of art, for an inventor to invent, is faith. Foolish Christians do not have faith when they say you shouldnt ask God to prove himself. If they are so sure of him, why be nervous that someone ask him to prove...
... himself? They demonstrate a total lack of faith whenever they say they must "take something on faith". The bible itself is a story of events occurring, and a long term relationship being developed between God and various people; who learn to rely on him because he proves himself again and again. There is no definition of faith in there that demands man leave reason behind; but reason is necessary to be able to use faith, and vice versa. The inventor cannot use his faith in his invention ...
...without his reason that will enable him to apply mathematics and science and physics and his skill to draw it out as a real world mechanism. He has faith in something that does not yet exist and people tell him cannot exist; and he manifests it into this world through faith. An engineer develops faith in the system of mathematics through his use of it over time. If you ask him to tell you why he has faith that math works, he will not describe a single, transcendent moment of time where he...
... suddenly "came to faith" in mathematics because some professor told him to. He will describe a long process of small proofs which accumulate with time and allow him to have faith that when he gets a result on his calculator; the system of math will not let him down. Faith is the most misunderstood principle in our modern age, and as Rand defined it; I am against it as well; but I think she misidentified what she was against. She accepted the christian definition; which is not faith at all.
If his belief is based on rationality, why would it be called "faith". Is rational and irrational faith two different things. If so, maybe "faith" isn't a good term to use.
I personally prefer to use a definition of "faith" found in the bible than one told to people by leaders of churches. There is an inherent reasoning process involved and it's explicit.
Let me ask; if 'the surety in the unseen' is totally against reason, how do YOU explain an inventor, sure of his unbuilt invention that all of science claims is impossible; yet he builds anyway, overcoming endless failures to do it?
Belief in the supernatural is rational if the cumulative evidence of your experience ad the process of your reason and understanding lead you to the conclusion that something supernatural exists.
In many ways, this is like the study of subatomic particles. In many cases we cannot examine the particle itself, only it's effect on things we can measure. We hypothesize that a quark or whatever caused that reaction.
if we see effects in our natural world that are comprehensible only in the context of something existing outside that natural world; if the only way to explain our world as it exists, is for something to be outside it; then the supernatural is rational.
Oh..consensus.I see what you meant; science comes to consensus about hypotheses; that is how it works. Your acceptance of many scientific "facts" are based on a consensus of scientists views, but you are right, consensus doesnt make rationality
People believe in God for all sorts of reasons, and I cannot prove that everyone's belief has an irrational basis.
What I cannot accept is faith or trust in the supernatural. Though someone may believe that supernatural things exist I do not think they can honestly say understand it enough to have faith in them. I think faith in God, or in thing we don't adequately understand can be dangerous.
If you believe in something you do not understand then it is not faith. Faith is real knowledge that something unseen exists. Like that inventor, or the engineer with faith in the system of mathematics. You are right; someone who does not understand what they "beleive in" really is dangerous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Am I the only one who thinks this Brook guy sounds like a friggin 2-year-old when he says his "r's"? I've heard Jews and Israelis speak before, so either his parents and friends must've had really weird voices, or that must be a really strange, rare dialect of Israelis.
There are so many things "god" told man in all these sacred texts and holy books that's been proven false! I mean, God in the OT refers to bats as birds. WTF is that? Bats are so obviously NOT birds.
The only things that are acceptable to take on faith are trivial matters, not big questions like "does god exist?" "does saddam have wmds?" and so many more. Besides, we don't live in the 12th Century. I'm amazed at how many people in industrialized, advanced nations still buy into this religion nonsense. It was made during a different time! These people were gullible, naive and wanted quick answers. So they MADE IT UP. I mean, it's so obvious. If God told them this, it'd be foolproof.
Religion was made by primitive peoples for primitive peoples. We have science and research now. We can discover facts and breakthroughs much more easily. I mean, if you wanna be religious, I won't stop you. But don't force anyone into it or use it as a basis for scientific or pseudoscientific beliefs like "intelligent" design. Intelligent design is subjective. Only the people who want it to be that way believe it. Or others who don't believe in god who are naive.
I do not have to prove the existance of God,I take it on faith. Sceince spends much time and resources trying to prove non-existance, They come up with theories such as "Big bang" and Darwinisim and yet, people still believe.
In what way is science not reasonable? I'll grant you that it is an observational discipline, and therefore is based on empirical evidence rather than pure logic alone, but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with reason.
To determine the veracity of a scientific hypothesis, a scientist still has to use reason to analyze the evidence. Science doesn't stop at observation; reasoned analysis is also a crucial component in the scientific method.
In fact, his possibly Freudian slip was entirely correct. Consider:
1. reason
2. science
3. religion
Only reason deals in the realm of fact; it is capable of identifying permanent and incontrovertible truth. Science, by contrast, is an observational discipline, limited by technology and instrumentation. The great Objectivist blind spot is its irrational desire to place reason and science on equal footing. Luckily, reason is all that is required to validate its core philosophy.
a man slipped and fell over a cliff edge. he found himself hanging from a small tree unable to climb up. He spoke to the heavens "is anybody up there?" . A voice replied "I am your God, have faith in me and let go of the branch". The man replied "umm, is there anybody else up there?"
MELOS75 7 months ago
Faith, by definition, is an assumption: a belief without evidence or proof.
Ataensic 7 months ago
Facts alone cannot ground our knowledge of the world. Consider
P1: there is a fact F: "my beliefs correspond to reality."
P2: F is unverifiable. I cannot *know* that F.
P3: F grounds my knowledge of the world.
C: The grounding of my knowledge of the world is unknowable.
P2 is key: There is no method of verifying whether our beliefs are true. Even if they are, the fact that they are is not enough to justify my knowledge in them.
derfos666 8 months ago
@derfos666 A fact is that which *is* known. Your premises don't make sense.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand
rationalselfish 1 month ago
@Philosophier121 Uncertainty is only a problem for those that lack a foundation for a solid worldview.
hrobertb 9 months ago
This guy is dealing with an extreme caricature of faith. There is no conflict between religion & science in a general/abstract sense. There can be particular religions which specifically go against science, but unless there is an explicitly, or at least strongly implicit, religious teaching then there really is no conflict. In short, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
hrobertb 11 months ago
@hrobertb The point is that religion tells you the believe something on faith - that is, without any evidence. Science, does not ask you to have faith, but rather provides solid reasoning for why you should accept something to be true. This is the conflict. Moreover, one cannot be consistent in life if one will have faith or "believe" in religious doctrine but maintain scientific rational in other aspects of life.
mason72518 10 months ago
@mason72518 Your definition of faith is flawed :(
Your assertion that religious people cannot be consistent with faith & science is just that, an assertion :(
hrobertb 10 months ago
@hrobertb My definition of faith is correct - that you are asked to believe something without evidence. And my point on consistency is that it is inconsistent for one to be scientific in all aspects of life and faith based when it comes to religion. If you do this, you are giving religion special treatment, allowing it to operate without the same rigour you apply to the rest of your life.
mason72518 10 months ago
@mason72518 Unfortunately you are only dealing with a strawman :( I came to faith because of the strong evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (see William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona). EVEN IF faith was without evidence or rationality, which I do not for a minute agree with, my belief is still based on evidence.
hrobertb 10 months ago
@hrobertb Proof of the resurrection of Jesus?! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it here.
mason72518 10 months ago 2
@mason72518 Ironically, you are the one that cannot be consistent. You are asking me to believe in things that can only be scientifically verified, but that statement does not even stand up to it's own assertion, i.e., it's self refuting! So, no, I am perfectly rational and you are dealing with a caricature of what faith is.
hrobertb 10 months ago
Objectivism is a cult
Xeper218 1 year ago
"Wewigion and science contwadict."
What a nitwit.
NickDanger3 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeeGrasswalker 1 year ago
so like uh science and religion are uh very contradictory
LeeGrasswalker 1 year ago
Objectivism is just another term for materialism and naturalism and is based on the tautological belief that "existence exists", which could be translated as only "material existence exists".
wbarquez 1 year ago
@wbarquez it is a *variant* on materialism and/or naturalism. "existence exists" may be tautological but it is not a belief. it is an axiomatic.
fede2 1 year ago
@fede2 But redundant nevertheless! The question should therefore be: What does exist?
wbarquez 1 year ago
@fede2 sure enough, but that's not what that statement intends. it simply states that *there is existence* and it's not something inherent exclusively to materialism/naturalism. it 's a reiteration of aristotle's "A is A".
fede2 1 year ago
YOU guys are idiots..
science only explains a small part of the universe...
the knowledge that science provides is an extremely small part of the total knowledge of a small part of the universe
knowledge about rocks does not explain knowledge about water and so on...
you sound like the man from missouri, SHOW ME!
cirosuperiore 1 year ago
@cirosuperiore There's absolutely no knowledge that can be attained that can't also be attained by science, reason and logic.
Sivels 4 months ago
@Sivels you are delusional. people like you are what Eric Voegelin called Gnostics. people who think they can know the truth of everything if they only had the right method and means....keep dreaming, you provide not only bad philosophy but BAD SCIENCE.
cirosuperiore 4 months ago
@cirosuperiore Faith is by definition a belief that is supported without any empirical evidence.
Sure I don't know if there's a Batman on mars, or whether there are flying unicorns flying around in space, but you're not called upon to prove a negative.
Sivels 4 months ago
The faithful and religious never fail to say "There is no contradiction between.."
Well, faith and reason, as well as religion and science, utterly DESTROY each other!!! It's one or the other, folks!
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheists are illogical dummies.
There are only two options:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source (the MIND of GOD)
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-intelligent source.
To their embarrassment, Atheists are stuck with option no.2 ---- a position that can NOT be logically or scientifically defended.
FUNNY but TRUE: Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless random chaos and is continually evolving via meaningless random chaos.
Class dismissed.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Notice how the pseudo-intellectual knucklehead in this video says that "reason is based on facts" as if what he is asserting is either reasonable or factual. In his zeal to defend his religion of atheism, he mocks reason and science by claiming that science and theism do not, and can not agree together.
What about information?
1. Information is the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.
2. Knowledge & Intelligence only arises from a MIND.
3. DNA contains INFORMATION.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker
It's neither random nor chaos. The alternatives you give are invalid because of your premise that there is a "source" at all.
The Objectivist position is that there is no "source" or rather, no "first cause".
Instead, their position is: existence exists. The universe has always been here, and everything that *is* (except those things acted upon by volitional entities, i.e., man) could not have been otherwise.
Radeo 1 year ago
@Radeo (QUOTE): "The universe has always been here" (END QUOTE)
Nope. Astronomers have confirmed that time and space and matter---everything--- had a beginning.
Not only that but the universe--including time itself-- is wearing down and out. It's winding down and has been from the beginning.
Check out the video in my faves list called "Scientific Proof Of God." It touches on the so called "big bang."
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker
The Big Bang is often used by creationists and christians in general to say that the universe had a beginning.
According to the second law of thermodinamics, matter cant be destroyed nor created. That leads us to assume the universe has always been here.
Now, the Big Bang DOES NOT say that the universe had a beginning, it said that the universe was in a ver compressed state.
We DO NOT YET KNOW how this compressed state expanded. Thats why the string theory exists.
SuffocateJav90 1 year ago
outstanding !! =)
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
So why do all those right wing bible thumpers on FOX News like Ayn Rand so much if its all about atheism?
PancakeRecipes 1 year ago
Also to add if one was to take reality seriously they would be living in an ultra bizarre world of strange and unusual coincidences that happen all the time. Ever hear of the phrase, "sometimes truth is stranger then fiction", or "you cant make this stuff up"? The very nature of reality is extremely irrational and extra ordinary on a scientific scale.
PancakeRecipes 1 year ago
There's a problem with this argument and that is the absence of a definition of 'god'. If god is some powerful being then I'm most definitely an atheist. However, if god is the essence of logic and reason, then I'm most definitely a theist.
TheFlanker35 1 year ago
Mr. Brook is such a good sport.
chuFFisTwo 1 year ago
OWNED in 2 minutes
hobopopo6 1 year ago
"reason and science contradict..." Freudian slip...
true...true
hyperseauton 1 year ago
@hyperseauton
Freud was an idiot.
lucentenor 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Objectivism: A philosophy by which people nobody gives a shit about find an ontological reason not to give a shit about anyone else
kingazzaman 2 years ago
@kingazzaman
On the contrary, it clarifies why you should care about others- they are valuable to you personally, emotionally, physically, through their own values- through the improvement of our world. In a way, it's much more profound an explanation than blindly "loving" others- which means, to have no reason to love others. How hollow is that.
lucentenor 1 year ago
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism." Martin Luther King Jr.
bamenya1 2 years ago
You'll actually find the wisest, brightest, & smartest people to be:
For Religion (Not with certain Religions or Religious beliefs ofcourse -- But not against Religion alltogether)
For Atheism (Not the irrational, arrogant Atheist behaviors or falsehoods that certain individual Atheists tend to give -- But Atheism).
Science (With great fasination)
&
A wide range view of Spirituality.
RastafariPoet 2 years ago
"She takes her mind seriously...the evidence of her senses." I love that. I feel even science has adopted negative connotations-merely the supposed destruction of religion. It is its opposite. Let's not use the word then. To destroy faith use the evidence of your senses. Or do we all reject our own perceptions to that unknowable leap of faith?
Thequantum2 2 years ago
Objectivism is very similar to philosophical realism,a nd in fact I developed my belief in objectivism without even hearing her version of it, in fact the only reason why I developed concepts of objectivism was because of God's existance himself, and the rejection of Atheism.
What made me laugh is that the person said Reigion and Reason are contradictory, when the guy probably never heard of abduction, and the fact that a guy named Thomas Aquinas existed (lol).
ogirv101 2 years ago
This is ridiculous.What i cant believe is that this whole religion debate is still going on. i mean its been like 150 years or something since Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published and we are still having this debate? Darwin must be rolling in his grave right now man.
Faith is believe without evidence.
e30reece 2 years ago
Darwin didn't address anything about atheism specifically, he came up with a scientific theory. There are plenty of scientific theories, such as geological ones which claim the continents moved over millions of years, which also contradict the Bible and existed before Darwin. In order for people to reject faith they need a philosophical basis--a proper defense of reason.
duke1duke1 2 years ago
I agree, evolution itself, is not a refutation of religion. Merely a refutation of some of its claims.
subdue420 1 year ago
@subdue420 Evolution is a scientific discovery, and science refutes religion. Reason is the working antithesis to the vegetable state of cognition one may refer to as "faith," the supposed means to revelation, or knowledge gifted (not created by a willful means of conceptual focus).
LegalizeCapitalism 1 year ago
@subdue420 the problem with only refuting 'some of it's claims' is that religion states that everything in it's doctrine (whatever religion it is) is all true and, therefore, equally true. To someone who believes this, proving one thing false is like proving everything false.
Goi825 1 year ago
@Goi825 ? What religion says that? In order to believe that statement means you have to deny the reason for the various sects within every major religion. The reasons behind the schisms (like the ones in objectivism) is because a group of people disagree with some of the pervading views of another group. Heck look at the reasons behind the protestant reformation, or the creed differences betweem the Wahhabis and the Sufis in Islam. Your statement is false.
LuqmanNaq 1 year ago
@e30reece:
Charles Darwin developed his natural selection theory in 1838, and he de-converted to Agnostic Deism in 1851, note that he never even rejected God thea Creator, just religion. Furthermore, it took him 13 years to do so, and not because of science, rather his daughter's death, and if he were today, you'd be surprised by your nescience about him:
"It is absurd to doubt that an ardent Theist can be an evolutionist as well" ~Charles Darwin
ogirv101 2 years ago
i cant believe some believers on the comments below are using profanity to defend themselves... ahahaha contradicts their logic of the bible..
justinihilanth 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's rubbish. Faith and reason don't contradict. They live in different worlds. You can have reason for anything you like, but it will get you nowhere after you're deceased. It will get you nowhere in any realm that you have no control over, and anyone well versed in reason knows that there are many fields that they have absolutely no control over.
philnoll 2 years ago
Great stuff.
koolakalle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a respectful, less confrontational look at Atheism and Christianity, check out "The God Debate" on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
noes ayn rand why did she have to be an atheist... she doesn't understand the world at all and yet does in some respect.... maybe i can say she doesn't understand society
lockeandkeynes 2 years ago
To anwser your question. She was atheist because for two reasons. A. There was no proof to provide. B. You don't take something on faith.
Roannepur 2 years ago
fuck you you stupid bitch
haolekillah 2 years ago
well said.
naybobdenod 2 years ago
If Einstein had imbued the philosophy of Ayn Rand at say 16, do you think it would be totally unlikely that he'd have thought up the special theory of relativity?
Likewise Werner Heisenburg's uncertainty principle?
I think of Newton and Hume being forced to read Aristotle as a comparable scenario.
fomastephanovitch 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Religion and reason DO NOT conflict. Reason and logic can lead us to the conclusion that God is! True Christianity do not tell people to shut off reason and the mind - this man knows absolutely nothing about the whole subject of apologetics.
kentuckypreacher 2 years ago
With due respect, kentuckypreacher, reason and logic can very clearly see that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods, let alone yours, and if your definition of "true Christianity" doesn't tell people to shut off reason and the mind, then you must not be using the Bible as a source for your faith.
hgryphon 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the contrary, friend: it is the Bible which provides a reasonable and logical evidential foundation for the Christian faith. I find many critics who are actually quite unfamiliar with its contents, which explains their denunciation.
Care to discuss further?
kentuckypreacher 2 years ago
Why certainly, kentuckypreacher, we can discuss this further. You say you have found evidence in the Bible that proves the existence of God. Fantastic! As a child I was not only heavily involved with my church, but was an officer on the youth ministry board. But when I began to question my faith, I found a lack of answers in the Bible. So let's talk about the Biblical evidence for God. Go ahead, please, and tell me what is in the Bible that proves the existence of God.
hgryphon 2 years ago
wow i think i smell bullshit
hereticjoeyjoey 2 years ago
hahahaha regardless. you are still looking at a book, not your personal environment (reality), and resting your case on faith. you choose you religion based on your feelings, subjectivity
haolekillah 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To someone with the grace of God, there is evidence in all existence. In fact, Christianity is THE ONLY system that can be successfully defended by reason and logic.
numberonesurvivor75 2 years ago
hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh man! Hang on, let me wipe a tear from my eye.
Whew! That's a good one, dude. I'm going to tell that joke to all my friends. I can even switch it up. Check this out:
To someone with the grace of Allah, there is evidence in all existence. In fact, Islam is THE ONLY system that yadda yadda yadda. Or You can use "The Goddess" and "Wicca," or "Satan" and "Satanism." Or any god and their religion. And it won't matter because it's a false assertion either way.
Good joke!
hgryphon 2 years ago
Nope. Islam is logically inconsistent and cannot reconcile its commandments with its moral code. It requires theft but forbids stealing. Christianity is consistent. It also holds that God is not omnipotent.
numberonesurvivor75 2 years ago
Christianity is consistent? On the contrary, most Christians merely play lip service to the word of God and do as they will. This is why Christians own the highest population in US prisons. The Bible contradicts itself in numerous places. And the practices of Christianity have changed considerably since the times talked about in the Bible. Where is the consistency?
And FYI, Muslims feel the same way about Christianity as you do about Islam. They make the same basic claim you did here.
hgryphon 2 years ago
@hgryphon:
That made no sense, we're not talking about the inconsistencies between the followers and the system, but in the system in itself, and you made a fallacy when assuming that people who contradict Christian philosophy are Christian. Furthermore, a causation/corellation fallacy with the prison statistic. name the contradictions? I'll name some contradictions in your methodological naturalism after. So how about you provide evidence for your claims.
ogirv101 2 years ago
Except, thanks to a little thing called dogma, the followers ARE the system. And er, wait, no, I didn't say people who contradict, I said Christians who contradict, so no fallacy. And, um, no, I never said christianity was the cause, so no fallacy. The prison statistics are freely available and provided by the US Gov. There are also numerous videos about Christians being the highest population per capita in US prisons Right here on the YouTube.
hgryphon 2 years ago
@hgryphon:
Dogma makes followers the system? That makes no sense, and isntead of explaining, you went on as if it had any meaning or truth to it. So if you're saying that Christianity is not the cause, how does hti spertain to anything at all? You brought up a moot point that has no germane point to our discussion, wait, did you read up on 2nd grade logic?
You're an Atheist, sunshine (wtf lol?), follows methodological or metaphysical natualism by default... wow, can't believe this.
ogirv101 2 years ago
A dogma is a cherished belief that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original religious doctrine, or even opposes it. Basically a religious form of majority rule. Like how many Christians use Leviticus to put down gays but ignore the rest of the law.
And all atheist means is no belief in a god. It doesn't have a default philosophy.
And if you can't believe it, you're free to find something else to do, sunshine.
hgryphon 2 years ago
(Pert 2) And you want to name contradictions in what? Sunshine, I'm an atheist, so I don't know what you're hoping to do by poking holes in "methodological naturalism," but be my guest.
hgryphon 2 years ago
wow you're a douchebag
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago
I am, but that doesn't make what I said wrong. :)
hgryphon 2 years ago
No, the fact that what you said is wrong is self-evident. I don't have to prove it.
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago
If you want to be taken seriously, then when you claim someone's argument is wrong, you have to back it up. You saying it's wrong doesn't make it so.
This is all pretty basic debate team stuff, btw.
hgryphon 2 years ago
no, you're wrong because I said so. End of story. This is all basic me being a beast stuff, btw.
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago
Uh huh. I've just lost interest in caring about your opinion. I see your words, but all my brain registers is blah blah blah.
hgryphon 2 years ago
Good. I win.
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago
As long as you shut up, we all win. :)
hgryphon 2 years ago
My opinion hasn't been swayed at all. I emerge victorious from this battle.
TheFlamingNuns 2 years ago
@hgryphon the bible never says that reason and the mind should be shut off. it just says to keep in mind that everything we know through reason and the mind are because of god
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Regarding this comment, I wasn't asserting the Bible specifically says the mind should be shut off. I left the comment almost a year ago and would need to re-watch the video and compare it to the comment by kentuckypreacher that I left this as a response to.
However, if you are going to begin with the conclusion that everything we know through reason and the mind are because of god, then you clearly have shut off the mind. There is no reason to begin with that assumption.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon if you are to begin with the assumption that something if it exists that with all the powers its suppose to have can be quantified or validated in any way by this planes science then you have clearly shut off the mind...a creature or being of extraplanar or supernatural origin would never be able to be proven through logic that tries to say everything must follow the same order of existence and if humans can't experiment on it, it mustn't exist. this is a flawed and haughty assumption
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Except to postulate such a being, you have to be able to quantify it.
Supernatural? What's that mean? Everything labeled "supernatural" is either fraud, hallucination, or misidentification of rational things.
Extraplanar? Can you name anything else that is extraplanar to compare your god concept to?
Answering questions with concepts like this is basically saying, "I don't know, but I do know." It's a weak, ineffective patch, and it certainly doesn't answer anything.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon no you don't...because its in the very nature of anything infinite to be unquantifiable
supernatural is anything beyond normal, your idea on the supernatural is based solely off the things have been proven wrong, when anything truly supernatural would defy explanation regardless of any advancements in science
extraplanar, look into M theory, the very nature of our universe creates a paradox where everything is true and false at the same time meaning so are religions no ones wrong
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Okay, look... M theory? That concept that there are 11 dimensions? Let's say it's correct for a moment and there is such a thing as an 11 dimensional object. This 11 dimensional object would still manifest all the way down to the first dimension, just as all three dimensional objects manifest in two and one dimensions. It also doesn't say "everything is right and wrong." If you're going to point to science, understand the science first?
Also, name one proven supernatural thing.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon m theory also states that for these things to exist there must be infinite numbers of dimensions not just 11...the 11th dimension is a form of string theory which m theory does encompass but there are more then just 11...these dimensions are not just spacial...everything exists on a wavelength which can pass through each other therefore a being such as god in a different dimension would not be manifest in a way we could detect
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Stop. I'm going to call your bluff: you're pulling this out of your butt. M-theory refers to just the 11th, so if you're talking about concepts that include more than 11, then you're not talking about M-theory. Also, dimensions ARE just spatial. For instance, height, length, width. And everything that exists as X-dimensional also manifests as (X-1)-dimensional as a cross section, so I don't know where you're getting your info. I'm going to need your reference mats, please.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon m theory is more then just 11...the 11th dimension theory was outmoded by m theory in that there are an infinite number of dimensions also
no dimensions are more then just spacial...time is one of the 11 dimensions your talking about it is not a point in space...also...when something is on a different wavelength then you such as most of the dimensions...you pass through it without knowing you have...therefore you couldn't see or touch it
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 I'm sorry, but again you are wrong on what m-theory states. In fact, the opening line in Wikipedia is: In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified.
Time is not a dimension. Time is a measure of rotations of space bodies around one another. Time is used as a label in some Newtonian models, but this is different than time literally being another dimension.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 A different wavelength of WHAT? What are you proposing exists at a different wavelength? I'm sorry, but the cheese has slipped off your cracker.
And you want ME to look up the topic of m-theory? I already did. Maybe YOU should look up something on m-theory, and you could then stop asserting that the concept says things that it clearly does not.
Further, let's suppose for a moment that m-theory says there are more than 11 dimensions and they were more than spacial. So what?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon each dimension has its own wavelength...and if your not on that wavelength you can pass through it as if it wasn't there at all...
i was telling you to cause you told me to show you something that says m theory states there are an infinite number of dimensions. if you actually read up on the thing you would know this.
they are more then spacial, meaning that just because they exist doesn't mean you would be aware you were moving through them...like light waves
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 "each dimension has its own wavelength" Citation needed. Where did you hear this bullshit? Because that's what it is. If someone told you this and you believed them, you got sold a bill of goods.
Oh, I have read up on m-theory. That's how I know it doesn't say what you say it says.
"just because they exist doesn't mean you would be aware you were moving through them" Again, citation needed. You can't move through "length." You can't move through "height." You can't move through them!
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon also as for proof watch history channels video on it...or look it up...anything remotely factual on the topic of m theory will prove my point
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@hgryphon also the very nature of anything supernatural means it cannot be proven therefore you question is invalid
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 I'm also going to have to disagree with you on this statement. Anything that defies the laws of physics would be supernatural. For instance, if I handed you a box, and that box contained the Amazon River, or any number of impossible things, that would be supernatural, and it doesn't have to be "something impossible in a box," that was just one example.
Also, you might want to turn off your auto-Twitter feed. Without evidence, you're going to get your rear handed to you.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon yes that is one thing that would be supernatural...but can you prove it exists...no you can't
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Are you not paying attention? If you handed me a box with the Amazon River in it, I could prove it existed because I'd be holding it!
The supernatural is wishful thinking, ignorance, or a combination of the two. You can NOT say "the supernatural exists" and then say "you can't prove it exists." Because if you can't prove it exists, you can't claim that it does.
So drop the subject of supernatural until you can bring me something that actually is supernatural. Concepts don't real.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon the point is...with infinite dimensions...there is no such thing as impossiblities...of course its ok to not want to believe this after all...the realm of the infinite can be a big scary place you have to be ready for it
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 I think you're using one word in place of another. I think the word you are looking for is "universes." As in a multiverse. Is that what you mean? Because an alternate universe is not the same concept as other dimensions. If you do mean alternate universes or a multiverse, that's not what m-theory is about. It's a completely separate issue. It's not a matter of comparing apples and oranges, it's a matter of comparing apples and VW buses. But if you don't mean that, then you're wrong.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon /watch?v=MBZwQCI_K8g watch all the parts to this and you'll understand what i'm speaking of
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Okay, that answers that question. You don't mean dimension, you mean universe.
Now I'm going to tell you why this video is wrong. It makes wild assertions about the nature of places that don't exist in this universe, that can't be detected, that can't be measured. In short, they're making shit up as they go along.
Also, so what? You can postulate anything you want about an alternate universe. It doesn't make it true. I'm postulating a spatula universe. You think that's real too?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon quite frankly yes...anythings possible when you create an infinite chance for it to happen and with a variable for laws of nature...i could say a giant whale just stole a mans wallet...and its happened somewhere not because i said so but because theres no chance when you bring in the infinite and the unencumbered for any illusion of fiction...and the point of me pointing out that not all dimensions are spatial is because like with time you can't literally feel time pass
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 What the hell are you smoking, dude? Just because something can happen, even with infinite chances, it doesn't mean it will. Just because there are infinite alternate universes doesn't mean that every pattern is expressed among them. What if every other one of those alternate universes is nothing but particles that never join into atoms?
And on top of that, how does postulating anything about places we can never experience matter in relation to the world we live in?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon nothing at all, the nature of the infinite eclipses your every statement as you seem to still be thinking within our boxed in universe...considering not all of them follow the rules of our science in favor of their own...anything is practical and is a fact...if you can't wrap your mind around something do not slap it down as you would a spider that you were scared of...i know when your told the infinite is a theory and not a reality as a kid you assume its true latter but science has
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@hgryphon always pointed out the infinite...also the usefulness of it...comes back around to the original argument...an infinite being like god with infinite power would be free to roam as he willed through all of the alternate realities as he willed that was the reason we ended up talking about AR's in the first place
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 No, that was the reason YOU started talking about alternate universes. I'm still not impressed. Especially since you still aren't one step closer to showing any evidence for gods. You've gone off on this terrific tangent which only shows evidence that you're not understanding science, or misunderstanding it enough to feel you've found a loophole that lets you claim a god exists. I can mathematically prove you didn't do this.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon oh really, let me warn in making that statement you've proven once again you have no clue what YOUR talking about...as your ignoring the fact that no matter what you say you can't tell the truth or lie...in the end making any claim to the contrary the exact sort of evidence needed to prove me correct...infinite universes = no room for doubt in anything
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Oh, well if I can't tell the truth OR lie, then there's no point to anything you're saying, right? (By the way, it's you're, the contraction of you and are, not your. Just FYI. If you care.)
Look, you can't just assert "infinite universes = no room for doubt." You have no evidence to support this statement.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon this all started because i was talking about the the possiblities m theory creates never once did i say that it was the end all be all...again my views on existence are purely philosophical not scientific though i do use theoretical physic's many theorys to back it up...
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 So you made it all up. Thank you.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon hardly its based off theoretical physics which has alot of backing in the physics and quantam physics field.
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 And Spider Man is based off of New York City.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon he's based in new york city ;)
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Allow me to rephrase. The setting of Spider Man is based off of New York City.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Let's say you're right and there are infinite yous on infinite worlds in the multiverse. Let's say you all flip a coin at the same time, with the actual meta-goal of this coin flip being just one of you gets heads. Statistically, there is a chance that none of the infinite yous will get heads. This is mathematically correct, and it shatters your notion of infinite potential means every concept exists. You can't argue against this fact, though I predict you will now try.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon actually i can...again you've ignored part of the fundamentals of the philosophy your precious math can only work in so much as our reality wherein our science and math holds true outside of it...it no longer functions...you can't disprove or prove anything with it beyond our reality
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 FAIL! You really think that if you are in another universe and you have one apple and someone else gives you one apple, you end up with anything other than two apples? No, the fundamentals of mathematics remain the same.
Once again, you can't assert something like this without evidence.
And "philosophy?" What does philosophy have to do with anything about anything we're discussing?
Damn, I can't wait to hear the answer to this.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon our math only works in this particular instance of life and existence known as the universe, for instance our form of algebra 2x=2 * x however in another universe with a different set of fundamental mathmatics 2x might equal 7q.
this is an explanation on how it is possible to get one apple + one apple = fish.
once again, you can't assert something doesn't exist without evidence. now you may believe that this doesn't exist and that is the great thing about belief that it is unre-
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@hgryphon -estricted you can't simply shove your nose in the air and wave your fist around saying "no no no, thats not the way it is because it's impossible because i can't understand why my science won't work here"...because that is big headed and arrogant and is to say that humanities logic and reason is infalliable. which proven time and time is false.
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 No, that's not how this is going down.
See, you made a claim. I retain the default position. You need to provide evidence for your claim. So do you have any?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon look back at cave paintings they are instinctual they looked at the world around them and assumed a higher power existed without it being forced upon them
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 So you're going to support one unfounded claim with two unfounded claims. In this case the claim that cave paintings were instinctual and the claim that they assumed a higher power existed without it being forced upon them. So where is your evidence supporting these two claims?
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon no, actually its supported by the archaelogical society that cavemen are the originators of spirituality and religion...they passed on their beliefs through cave paintings
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 That's not what you said though. So are you putting words in these archaeologists' mouths? You made the claim that it was instinctual, and you made the claim that it wasn't forced on anyone.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon it is exactly what i was saying, their religion and spirituality was brought on through their own outlooks and beliefs, i'm not putting any words in their mouths...any archaeologist will tell you religion and spirituality was important to them, they had gods just like we do...religion was created with no precedent and seemingly out of no where...abstract concepts like that seem a bit beyond the imagination of paleolithic man
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 You have no basis for what you are saying. You are simply going with what you feel and drawing a conclusion with no familiarity or evidence. I'll give you one last try to present evidence for your claims without having to make up another claim to cover your ass. You also have the option to simply state you don't actually know what you're talking about.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon ok, one your getting butt hurt about the fact we've always had some form of religion or theistic belief....two. i've told you archaeologists know that the cavemen had gods if you don't want to believe this then thats your problem but if you do so you can't claim that cavemen existed at all which is ignorance =) kthxbye
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Brilliant. So you're going to ignore my actual objection and make one up. That's called a straw man.
Further, you're going to apply an emotion to my objection. That's classy. It's also not true. If anything, you're amusing me with your inane stupidity and your inability to understand science.
But if you want to dismiss me, by all means, dismiss me. You still lack evidence to support your claims, and the default position still wins.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon also, scientists mostly agree the universe is infinite in length and depth...so why then is it so hard for you to believe that existence is also infinite in and of itself
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@DarkJoker7 Listen to yourself. That's a bullshit way to look at anything. Just because item X has a given quality, that doesn't mean item Y has that quality.
Example: Trees are made of wood, so why is it hard to believe that the whole planet is made of wood? And before you deny it, that's the exact same kind of logic you're trying to offer me. It's not compelling, it's not rational, it's not even reasonable.
hgryphon 1 year ago
@hgryphon it is when you realize what applies to one thing doesn't apply to the other in this instance you have specified a concrete quality unrelated to the abstract...where as infinite is an abstract quality that is applicable to the abstract untouchable concepts such as space and time something you can touch...can never be infinite because of the very nature of anything concrete
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
@hgryphon nor is anyone right
DarkJoker7 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is just a theory. For example, science cannot explane why the comets killed only the dinosars and left all the cats and dogs intact. Could it be that dinosars actually never existed? yes, that is one theory that needs to be examined. Dinosars are never mentions in the Bible, therefore they did not exist.
Wanda4DecentValues 2 years ago
It does not matter what definition the bible uses for faith...when you read it you quickly see that you have to suspend your objective understanding about reality to accept it as true...the trinity, or talking donkey, or the fact Jesus said thoses who believed him would be able to consume poison and it would not hurt them. You have to take things like that on faith to accept them
InFromTheVoid 2 years ago
They have to define what they mean by "faith" more clearly. If it means the acceptance of an idea without demonstration, then they've buried themselves. Historical facts are indemonstrable, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. Also, Scholastic philosophers looked at Christian faith and applied reason to uncover further truths ... they did not shut off their brains when looking at their Christian faith. Somehow, Atheists have always ignored those facts.
Krshwunk 2 years ago 3
"faith" to me means believing in something you would not otherwise have believed on the basis of facts and rationality. So, how is possible for Christians to not "shut of their brains" if they believe based on faith.
clermontflorida 2 years ago
Objectivism=Jewish propaganda. There is nothing objective about objectivism. People really need to read Christopher Langan's CTMU.
xxdiogenescynicxx 2 years ago
I think his definition of faith is wrong. He claims that it is a call to shut off your mind, and surprisingly, many Christians accept this idea (which only shows the moral problems with the modern church). Faith without rationality is hollow. St. Paul constantly appealed based on evidence, and used reason to communicate. The Bible itself is a story of cause and effect. The idea that you just believe something and do not think is a creation of an oppressive modern church. Read Francis Schaeffer.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Then what is "faith"
clermontflorida 2 years ago
Faith is a sincere belief in something not manifest. Let us observe a "Hank Rearden" who KNOWS it is possible to make this metal, and all the metallurgists in the world tell him it is not possible based on science. Yet he knows it is. He knows it based partly on a rational process of understanding himself, and his own capabilities, and of course his knowledge of physical reality; but when he declares, as he fails for the thousandth time, but perseveres, that is IS possible, he has faith in his..
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... vision, in his ability, in his invention; though the formula as yet does not exist; there is no physical proof that it can exist, and yet he has faith in this invention not yet manifest. The belief in the not yet manifest; which is absolutely necessary for an artist to make a new work of art, for an inventor to invent, is faith. Foolish Christians do not have faith when they say you shouldnt ask God to prove himself. If they are so sure of him, why be nervous that someone ask him to prove...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... himself? They demonstrate a total lack of faith whenever they say they must "take something on faith". The bible itself is a story of events occurring, and a long term relationship being developed between God and various people; who learn to rely on him because he proves himself again and again. There is no definition of faith in there that demands man leave reason behind; but reason is necessary to be able to use faith, and vice versa. The inventor cannot use his faith in his invention ...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...without his reason that will enable him to apply mathematics and science and physics and his skill to draw it out as a real world mechanism. He has faith in something that does not yet exist and people tell him cannot exist; and he manifests it into this world through faith. An engineer develops faith in the system of mathematics through his use of it over time. If you ask him to tell you why he has faith that math works, he will not describe a single, transcendent moment of time where he...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... suddenly "came to faith" in mathematics because some professor told him to. He will describe a long process of small proofs which accumulate with time and allow him to have faith that when he gets a result on his calculator; the system of math will not let him down. Faith is the most misunderstood principle in our modern age, and as Rand defined it; I am against it as well; but I think she misidentified what she was against. She accepted the christian definition; which is not faith at all.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
If his belief is based on rationality, why would it be called "faith". Is rational and irrational faith two different things. If so, maybe "faith" isn't a good term to use.
clermontflorida 2 years ago
I personally prefer to use a definition of "faith" found in the bible than one told to people by leaders of churches. There is an inherent reasoning process involved and it's explicit.
Let me ask; if 'the surety in the unseen' is totally against reason, how do YOU explain an inventor, sure of his unbuilt invention that all of science claims is impossible; yet he builds anyway, overcoming endless failures to do it?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
A consensus doesn't determine whether something is rational or irrational.
Let me ask you, what about belief in the supernatural is rational?
clermontflorida 2 years ago
When did I say anything about a consensus?
Belief in the supernatural is rational if the cumulative evidence of your experience ad the process of your reason and understanding lead you to the conclusion that something supernatural exists.
In many ways, this is like the study of subatomic particles. In many cases we cannot examine the particle itself, only it's effect on things we can measure. We hypothesize that a quark or whatever caused that reaction.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
if we see effects in our natural world that are comprehensible only in the context of something existing outside that natural world; if the only way to explain our world as it exists, is for something to be outside it; then the supernatural is rational.
Oh..consensus.I see what you meant; science comes to consensus about hypotheses; that is how it works. Your acceptance of many scientific "facts" are based on a consensus of scientists views, but you are right, consensus doesnt make rationality
BiggsReport 2 years ago
People believe in God for all sorts of reasons, and I cannot prove that everyone's belief has an irrational basis.
What I cannot accept is faith or trust in the supernatural. Though someone may believe that supernatural things exist I do not think they can honestly say understand it enough to have faith in them. I think faith in God, or in thing we don't adequately understand can be dangerous.
clermontflorida 2 years ago
If you believe in something you do not understand then it is not faith. Faith is real knowledge that something unseen exists. Like that inventor, or the engineer with faith in the system of mathematics. You are right; someone who does not understand what they "beleive in" really is dangerous.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Am I the only one who thinks this Brook guy sounds like a friggin 2-year-old when he says his "r's"? I've heard Jews and Israelis speak before, so either his parents and friends must've had really weird voices, or that must be a really strange, rare dialect of Israelis.
whoo689 2 years ago
There are so many things "god" told man in all these sacred texts and holy books that's been proven false! I mean, God in the OT refers to bats as birds. WTF is that? Bats are so obviously NOT birds.
whoo689 2 years ago
The only things that are acceptable to take on faith are trivial matters, not big questions like "does god exist?" "does saddam have wmds?" and so many more. Besides, we don't live in the 12th Century. I'm amazed at how many people in industrialized, advanced nations still buy into this religion nonsense. It was made during a different time! These people were gullible, naive and wanted quick answers. So they MADE IT UP. I mean, it's so obvious. If God told them this, it'd be foolproof.
whoo689 2 years ago
Religion was made by primitive peoples for primitive peoples. We have science and research now. We can discover facts and breakthroughs much more easily. I mean, if you wanna be religious, I won't stop you. But don't force anyone into it or use it as a basis for scientific or pseudoscientific beliefs like "intelligent" design. Intelligent design is subjective. Only the people who want it to be that way believe it. Or others who don't believe in god who are naive.
whoo689 2 years ago
I hate to break it to you, but faith is for idiots, suppressorgrid.
whoo689 2 years ago
I do not have to prove the existance of God,I take it on faith. Sceince spends much time and resources trying to prove non-existance, They come up with theories such as "Big bang" and Darwinisim and yet, people still believe.
supressorgrid 2 years ago
thats not it; theism conflicts science
fiendsfreeminds 2 years ago
Science doesn't conflict with theism at all, but with atheism.
RebelRay 2 years ago
You don't have to be religious to hate the government.
nkelly1432 2 years ago
agreed 100%.
MusicnSoul011 2 years ago
theoutlawjoseywales,
In what way is science not reasonable? I'll grant you that it is an observational discipline, and therefore is based on empirical evidence rather than pure logic alone, but that doesn't mean it is in conflict with reason.
To determine the veracity of a scientific hypothesis, a scientist still has to use reason to analyze the evidence. Science doesn't stop at observation; reasoned analysis is also a crucial component in the scientific method.
fullmetalchymist 2 years ago
bunch of stupid cunts
pouyan242 2 years ago
In fact, his possibly Freudian slip was entirely correct. Consider:
1. reason
2. science
3. religion
Only reason deals in the realm of fact; it is capable of identifying permanent and incontrovertible truth. Science, by contrast, is an observational discipline, limited by technology and instrumentation. The great Objectivist blind spot is its irrational desire to place reason and science on equal footing. Luckily, reason is all that is required to validate its core philosophy.
theoutlawjoseywales 2 years ago